5 ms·

Having coastal access doesn’t guarantee you become first-world. That’s a bad take-away. Not having coastal access virtually guarantees a country will stay in s

by aksss 5y ago

Having coastal access doesn’t guarantee you become first-world. That’s a bad take-away. Not having coastal access virtually guarantees a country will stay in second/third world status unless part of an empire or trade federation that can provide such access (as the only examples of first-world landlocked nations are). So this seems a pretty determinate factor, all else being equal. And one that has been known since day one. The question is, what are you expecting to build the nation into if coastline dictates its access to markets?

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I think that's a bad take. Take Switzerland, for instance, or Austria. They were first-world countries before they were part of a trade federation. And, in fact, they were invited into the trade federation because they were first-world countries. (Yes, Austria was part of an empire. No, Switzerland wasn't.)
- aksss 5y ago
  Defining countries as "first world" wasn't even a thing until after Switzerland had joined the League of Nations. And Switzerland was, in fact, part of (and [charitably] aligned with) a few different empires in its day, to say the least possible about that. They are (and in modern history always were) dependent upon other nations for their trade routes which is determinate in their first-world status. What argument are you trying to advance? That because Switzerland is first-world and landlocked - one of a few exceptions to the rule, surrounded by and allied with some of the planet's most powerful first-world nations - that Afghanistan could be expected to become one of the exceptions too? The fact that the word "miracle" accompanies any explanation of Swiss economics ("The Swiss Miracle") should tell you that the odds of replicating their circumstances are long. Switzerland, Austria, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic are all exceptions because they're unusual. They benefit immensely from being small populations with developed and friendly neighbors. Afghanistan is thirty million people occupying a country whose borders are notoriously unsafe, whose regions are partly characterized by their ruling warlord, and whose chief product is agricultural. Who are Afghanistan's neighbors with coastal access? China, Iran, and Pakistan. What are the prospects, as you build up industrialized resource development (mining, wells) in Afghanistan, for leveraging your coastal access rights with friends and borders like that? Coastal access is not just about exports, either. Switzerland's geography, population of 8m, and history in Western Europe are hardly a useful roadmap for Afghanistan because the circumstances of each country are quite different.
  - toast0 5y ago
    > Who are Afghanistan's neighbors with coastal access? China, Iran, and Pakistan. Adding to your point, it's a long way across China, and the border with Afghanistan is far away from populations and ports. I don't think it's great for trade, even though trade with China is certainly important.
    - aksss 5y ago
      Yes, I could see China hoovering out resources from Afghanistan, but I think they have to be concerned about the Taliban. Maybe cash for gas/oil/REM/etc is a way to keep them from finding common cause with their Muslim brethren across the border (the whole Uighur thing). I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we started funding the Taliban again at some point in the near future, as much as it make me facepalm. I don't let good sense be an impediment to my cynicism.
      - toast0 5y ago
        China certainly loves resources, but transporting them from west to east is going to be expensive. It's probably cheaper to get them elsewhere and send them by sea. Unless they think developing the resources and transportation will keep any trouble from crossing their borders. I think it would be beneficial for the Afghans, assuming it wasn't too exploitive, more access to trade is usually a good thing, and exporting resources would generate net income.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    The League of Nations wasn't a trade federation, so that's kind of beside the point. What argument am I trying to advance? That your geographic determinism is flawed. There are a few first-world landlocked countries; there are many third-world countries with ocean access. Trying to say that Afghanistan is doomed because it's landlocked is unsupported by the available evidence. Afghanistan is doomed, but it's doomed by the culture of the people (and, as you say, by their neighbors). If you took the same people and put them in Pakistan instead, would the ocean access really improve things? Maybe, a little, but not enough to fundamentally change the situation.

by aksss 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

I think that's a bad take. Take Switzerland, for instance, or Austria. They were first-world countries before they were part of a trade federation. And, in fact, they were invited into the trade federation because they were first-world countries. (Yes, Austria was part of an empire. No, Switzerland wasn't.)

aksss 5y ago
Defining countries as "first world" wasn't even a thing until after Switzerland had joined the League of Nations. And Switzerland was, in fact, part of (and [charitably] aligned with) a few different empires in its day, to say the least possible about that. They are (and in modern history always were) dependent upon other nations for their trade routes which is determinate in their first-world status. What argument are you trying to advance? That because Switzerland is first-world and landlocked - one of a few exceptions to the rule, surrounded by and allied with some of the planet's most powerful first-world nations - that Afghanistan could be expected to become one of the exceptions too? The fact that the word "miracle" accompanies any explanation of Swiss economics ("The Swiss Miracle") should tell you that the odds of replicating their circumstances are long. Switzerland, Austria, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic are all exceptions because they're unusual. They benefit immensely from being small populations with developed and friendly neighbors. Afghanistan is thirty million people occupying a country whose borders are notoriously unsafe, whose regions are partly characterized by their ruling warlord, and whose chief product is agricultural. Who are Afghanistan's neighbors with coastal access? China, Iran, and Pakistan. What are the prospects, as you build up industrialized resource development (mining, wells) in Afghanistan, for leveraging your coastal access rights with friends and borders like that? Coastal access is not just about exports, either. Switzerland's geography, population of 8m, and history in Western Europe are hardly a useful roadmap for Afghanistan because the circumstances of each country are quite different.
- toast0 5y ago
  > Who are Afghanistan's neighbors with coastal access? China, Iran, and Pakistan. Adding to your point, it's a long way across China, and the border with Afghanistan is far away from populations and ports. I don't think it's great for trade, even though trade with China is certainly important.
  - aksss 5y ago
    Yes, I could see China hoovering out resources from Afghanistan, but I think they have to be concerned about the Taliban. Maybe cash for gas/oil/REM/etc is a way to keep them from finding common cause with their Muslim brethren across the border (the whole Uighur thing). I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we started funding the Taliban again at some point in the near future, as much as it make me facepalm. I don't let good sense be an impediment to my cynicism.
    - toast0 5y ago
      China certainly loves resources, but transporting them from west to east is going to be expensive. It's probably cheaper to get them elsewhere and send them by sea. Unless they think developing the resources and transportation will keep any trouble from crossing their borders. I think it would be beneficial for the Afghans, assuming it wasn't too exploitive, more access to trade is usually a good thing, and exporting resources would generate net income.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The League of Nations wasn't a trade federation, so that's kind of beside the point. What argument am I trying to advance? That your geographic determinism is flawed. There are a few first-world landlocked countries; there are many third-world countries with ocean access. Trying to say that Afghanistan is doomed because it's landlocked is unsupported by the available evidence. Afghanistan is doomed, but it's doomed by the culture of the people (and, as you say, by their neighbors). If you took the same people and put them in Pakistan instead, would the ocean access really improve things? Maybe, a little, but not enough to fundamentally change the situation.